It is remarkable. The administration that was so contemptuous of government and that might have briefly been seen as a beacon of hope by "big L" libertarians is now printing money faster than Palin can gut a moose and shoveling it to the AIGs of this debacle. Apparently we, as taxpayers, will be taking an interest in AIG; an ownership stake. Not exactly what the Libertarians had in mind.
Maybe not on paper, but in reality, privatized profits and socialized risk is basically the underpinning of free market ideology. Let the markets decide, until the magical market forces cause the economic system to collapse, at which point regulation is okay, if "regulation" means pumping taxpayer money into the same entities that fucked things up in the first place, then spinning off those entities when they become profitable again.
But in the vein of "Just how different are the Democrats from the Republicans" and after listening to some of the recent Obama campaign rhetoric, I have to ask: which Democrats did *anything* to put a spotlight on this huge iceberg and steer hard to port (or starboard)?
...
TonyC, you may be in the most observant position to point out what the Dems did (at great risk to themselves and their careers, and in a fashion that distinguished the Dems from the Republicans) to try to save us from this mess.
None of the Democratic efforts pass your "at great risk to themselves and their careers" test. These are politicians, after all. But they did try to do something. The
Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 as originally written was a pretty good bill, but as with many bills, it had to be watered down to pass Republican (and conservative Democratic) opposition the house, and by that time, it was such a disaster, the Senate wouldn't touch it.
I do not give Congressional Democrats a pass for rolling over and capitulating on these important issues, but I do recongize that what Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the house leadership is dealing with is a congress where there's a Democratic majority, but a progressive minority. This is due to two Democratic caucuses within Congress: The Blue Dog Coalition (47 House members) and the New Democrat Coalition (44 House members). While members of these caucuses are unlikely to blindly vote with Republcans, they are pro-business (especially big business) just like the GOP, often socially conservative, and generally not dependable when it comes to voting for progressive legislation.
Then, in the Senate, the Democrats have had to deal with a record number of GOP filibusters, so any time a good bill somehow makes its way out of the House, you can bet the GOP senators will kill it. Throw Joe Lieberman into the mix, and true, honest-to-goodness Democrats are a minority in both houses.
Again, do not interpret this as me absolving the Democrats for their sins... I just tend to weigh sins of commission a bit more than sins of omission. I will continue to vote for the shitty party that tries to do good but lacks the balls to make it happen over the shitty party that is actively working to undermine democracy, economic regulation, civil rights, etc. There is a good amount of daylight between the two, both on paper and in practice, and even though the end result is still not to my liking, I believe we can get there.
Previous Topic
Index
